2017
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa9c5c
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gap assessment in current soil monitoring networks across Europe for measuring soil functions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
55
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
1
55
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Gaps in knowledge or deficiencies in assessment for EU soil monitoring were reported as lack of data on earthworm communities and their roles [45], this despite another compilation by Rutgers et al (2016 : Table 3) [46]. This latter report noted that earthworms were surprisingly under-represented or neglected taxa considering their key ecological importance whilst provided means, here recalculated, as 106.6 worms m −2 and just 4.1 species per site (maximum 10 ± 0.95 =~11 species per site) for eight countries.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Earthworm Monitoring Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gaps in knowledge or deficiencies in assessment for EU soil monitoring were reported as lack of data on earthworm communities and their roles [45], this despite another compilation by Rutgers et al (2016 : Table 3) [46]. This latter report noted that earthworms were surprisingly under-represented or neglected taxa considering their key ecological importance whilst provided means, here recalculated, as 106.6 worms m −2 and just 4.1 species per site (maximum 10 ± 0.95 =~11 species per site) for eight countries.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Earthworm Monitoring Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proxy indicator system for modelling and mapping of the soil biodiversity function of Europe was based on 11 biological and chemical soil attributes: Total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen, total phosphorous, pH, clay content, three earthworm community metrics (abundance, richness, and Shannon index), microbial (bacteria plus fungi) biomass, bacterial biomass, and bacterial diversity. The process of attribute selection and ranking is described in Van Leeuwen et al (2017) [9]. In short, expert knowledge was collected through questionnaires to gather scores for attributes using a logical sieve method [49].…”
Section: Modelling and Mapping Soil Biodiversity: Europementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 1. Scores and final weight factors of six soil biological attributes and five chemical attributes in the model for soil biodiversity and habitat provisioning (see [9]). The attributes were plotted on the maps according to their z-scores taking the distribution of all data on the map into account.…”
Section: Modelling and Mapping Soil Biodiversity: Europementioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations